FAA bill full of politics as usual

Earmarks might be on the outs in Washington, but the first bill on the Senate floor since Democrats reluctantly embraced an earmark ban is still chock-full of expensive aviation pet projects that lawmakers are eager to defend for their voters back home.

Tucked inside a current draft of a bill to fund Federal Aviation Administration programs are legislative line items that would direct money to state-specific projects and programs, including $12 million to subsidize flights to 44 rural communities in Alaska, a land transfer for a new airport in Nevada and new airspace testing sites likely in Oregon.

Text Size

-

+

reset

POLITICO 44

While the line items don’t fit the strict definition of appropriations earmarks, the FAA bill shows how the deft use of legislative language by senators can accomplish the same thing — making sure their home states are taken care of with special projects. Critics call these backdoor earmarks, while defenders say they’re not violating the rules of the ban and are doing an important part of a senator’s job.

Last week, the Senate barred earmarks from spending bills that wind through the Appropriations Committee, but the scramble to keep sending money home raises the question of what is — and isn’t — an earmark.

“The earmark ban is only, as I understand, for the appropriations bills,” Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told POLITICO. “There are probably, I haven’t looked, there are half a dozen earmarks in this [FAA] bill that we’re on now.”

Longtime earmark critic Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) filed an amendment to the aviation bill that would cut a $200 million fund that covers the $12 million subsidy for 44 Alaska airports.

“The amendment would save $200 million or more by ending subsidies to airlines that serve small airports when there isn’t the market need or volume of consumers,” said McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan.

In a letter to McCain, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) urged him to withdraw his proposal, saying the funds are necessary for poor communities that are reachable only by airplane.

“Debating project-specific funding is healthy and necessary,” said Julie Hasquet, a spokeswoman for Begich. “But a program like [Essential Air Service] — which is part of a lifeline in many parts of Alaska — needs to be preserved.”

There’s even a nice benefit in the aviation bill for Nevada, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home state. The bill includes a federal land transfer around the construction site of a second airport near Las Vegas.

“The FAA legislation allows Ivanpah Airport to plan for the future by utilizing some of its surrounding land to construct flood-control facilities to prepare for a 100-year flood,” Reid spokesman Zac Petkanas said, defending the tailored project.

Reid initially sparred with President Barack Obama over his calls for an earmark ban during the State of the Union, telling the president to “back off.” Last week, Reid agreed to abide by the ban on earmarks in spending bills.

Someone should check to see if Reid owns property around the new airport. He and his family have bought property where he wants the high speed train to be routed. Reid has made himself wealthy on land deals in NV, also his family.

If deficit reduction is a priority along with job creation, and funds for many earmark projects have not been spent, why can't members of Congress walk the talk? Oh, I forgot - they are used to talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time and only walking to the bank of the lobbyists. The voters need to keep a list of politicians "spending" tax dollars on earmarks and then vote them out of office, even when they come from the voters' home states. Otherwise, expect to pay back those earmarks in higher taxes.

I think it depends how you define an earmark. To me, an earmark is directing Federal money to a specific State or community. None of the programs discussed in this article do that. The article seems to view an earmark as any time a Senator wants to fund or increase a program that his State might also benefit from. Under that definition, almost every single piece of legislation is an earmark since that is what legislation does - creates Federal programs or increases these programs and funds these programs. In short, when you really think about it, the article is ridiculous since a Senator could never support any program unless he promised that his State would never get any of the money. And since most Federal money is handed out by formula, its a promise he would not have the power to keep.

I expect that some of these projects have merit. They provide needed infrastructure improvement, jobs, services, etc. But not all of them for sure. The projects should not be adopted just because Senator X wants them. They should be justified and voted up or down on the merits. And in these deficit ridden times, the merits would have to be truly overwhelming to get them in the bill. Most of these projects have some merit, but probably not enough to be adopted at this time. Nevertheless, the log rolling, "you vote for mine and I'll vote for yours" approach of congress will probably continue unless the President really puts them down. We'll see.

I expect that some of these projects have merit. They provide needed infrastructure improvement, jobs, services, etc. But not all of them for sure. The projects should not be adopted just because Senator X wants them. They should be justified and voted up or down on the merits. And in these deficit ridden times, the merits would have to be truly overwhelming to get them in the bill. Most of these projects have some merit, but probably not enough to be adopted at this time. Nevertheless, the log rolling, "you vote for mine and I'll vote for yours" approach of congress will probably continue unless the President really puts them down. We'll see.

I expect that some of these projects have merit. They provide needed infrastructure improvement, jobs, services, etc. But not all of them for sure. The projects should not be adopted just because Senator X wants them. They should be justified and voted up or down on the merits. And in these deficit ridden times, the merits would have to be truly overwhelming to get them in the bill. Most of these projects have some merit, but probably not enough to be adopted at this time. Nevertheless, the log rolling, "you vote for mine and I'll vote for yours" approach of congress will probably continue unless the President really puts them down. We'll see.

Sure....some of these items are needed, such as the subsidies to provide flight service to rural areas....but these are not projects of national interest. They are problems to be solved at the state level. The earmarks must stop. Federal tax dollars should not be spent on any project that does represent national need and benefit. Period.

Sure....some of these items are needed, such as the subsidies to provide flight service to rural areas....but these are not projects of national interest. They are problems to be solved at the state level. The earmarks must stop. Federal tax dollars should not be spent on any project that does represent national need and benefit. Period.